Looking for a debate...........

 ............ NOT just, good, lock him up, and throw away the keys.

Prison time for teen Capitol rioter who pepper-sprayed officers, brandished Confederate flag

What is there to debate, you ask?

WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal judge on Monday imposed a 30-month prison sentence on a man who brandished a Confederate flag outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and pepper sprayed two Capitol police officers.

Isreal Easterday, who was 19 years old when he participated in the riot, faced a potential sentence of 12 years and seven months per to the Justice Department’s recommendation. 

Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg acknowledged the severity of Easterday’s actions and the serious injuries the two officers he sprayed suffered, but imposed a sentence five times lower than the government’s recommendation.

“The fact that you were very young and may not have fully understood what you were a part of” played a role in the Barack Obama appointee's decision, Boasberg said.

The now-23-year-old Easterday, who grew up in an Amish family in rural Kentucky and was homeschooled by his mother until he was 14, apologized for pepper-spraying the officers and said it was the “stupidest mistake” of his entire life. 

https://www.courthousenews.com/prison-time-for-teen-capitol-rioter-who-pepper-sprayed-officers-brandished-confederate-flag/

On other debate forums, LIBERALS wanted this young person sentenced longer and made comments like "good riddance to bad trash."

Being a liberal Snowflake myself, I am all about 2nd chances, especially for someone this young. Throw away the keys and you throw away his life and he will likely come out of jail a bitter person and more violent.

Check the incarceration rate for the U.S. AND then check the recidivism rate for the U.S. We are doing something wrong. 

BUT Snowflake, he pepper sprayed police officers and he is one of THOSE Trump supporters, he deserves no mercy.

SO, debate whether the judge made the right judgement or whether the judge was too lenient and this person who was 19 at the time of the offense deserves 12 years in prison. 

Rethinking the New York election fraud case

Based on opening arguments, a NYT opinion by a law professor got me to reassess the strength of the ongoing trial:

I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. 

Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake.

After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the Manhattan D.A. has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.

A year ago, I wondered how entirely internal business records (the daily ledger, pay stubs and invoices) could be the basis of any fraud if they are not shared with anyone outside the business. I suggested that the real fraud was Mr. Trump’s filing an (allegedly) false report to the Federal Election Commission, and only federal prosecutors had jurisdiction over that filing.

A recent conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. Mr. Trump may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C. filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the F.E.C.

In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.

Looking at the case in this way might address concerns about state jurisdiction. In this scenario, Mr. Trump arguably intended to deceive state investigators, too. State investigators could find these inconsistencies and alert federal agencies. Prosecutors could argue that New York State agencies have an interest in detecting conspiracies to defraud federal entities; they might also have a plausible answer to significant questions about whether New York State has jurisdiction or whether this stretch of a state business filing law is pre-empted by federal law.

However, this explanation is a novel interpretation with many significant legal problems. And none of the Manhattan D.A.’s filings or today’s opening statement even hint at this approach.

Instead of a theory of defrauding state regulators, Mr. Bragg has adopted a weak theory of “election interference,” and Justice Juan Merchan described the case, in his summary of it during jury selection, as an allegation of falsifying business records “to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 election.”

As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal. The election law scholar Richard Hasen rightly observed, “Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.”  

In Monday’s opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed, “It was election fraud, pure and simple.” None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it “election fraud” is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet.

The most accurate description of this criminal case is a federal campaign finance filing violation. Without a federal violation (which the state election statute is tethered to), Mr. Bragg cannot upgrade the misdemeanor counts into felonies. Moreover, it is unclear how this case would even fulfill the misdemeanor requirement of “intent to defraud” without the federal crime.

Viewed through that analysis, the case now feels to be significantly less solid to me. What surprised me is that paying hush money like DJT did is legal. Lying to the FEC about it (the cover up) might be a federal law violation, but this analysis makes the state case look fairly weak. That casts the prosecution in a different light for me.

What baffles me is why DJT keeps lying about not making a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels when it was legal. That makes no sense. Maybe it can be explained by DJT's deranged ego and shameless contempt for inconvenient facts and truths.

As time passes and more little bits like this pop up, a troubling picture develops of deep flaws in the rule of law. Why on Earth would it be legal for a candidate to pay hush money to hide a sex scandal with intent to deceive the voters? That strikes directly into the heart of democracy and the public trust needed to make it function. People like Trump really are above the law because they can afford it.

And why isn't there a federal prosecution for DJT's lies to the FEC about the hush money payment? Is Merrick Garland really that incompetent, and/or is the federal law inadequate to the task of fending off demagogues making a run at kleptocratic dictatorship by not proscribing hush money payments to hookers before elections? What the hell else is the law Swiss cheese about? What else can demagogic kleptocrats running for office do that most normal people would think should be illegal, e.g., shoot someone in broad daylight for the sheer fun of it?

Thoughts about the pro-Palestine protest at Columbia University

Various sources are reporting various things about the recent pro-Palestine protest at Columbia University. Some sources say it was antisemitic and others say it wasn't. Some say the protesters were peaceful and some say otherwise. Once again, the poison and contradictory narratives that attaches to the endless Israel-Palestine hate & misery story is gushing forth. I did some searching and it seems that the protestors were peaceful, but critical of Israel's brutal policy toward Gaza. How prominent the alleged acts of antisemitism were isn't clear to me. Also not clear to me is what is the line between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israeli war policy.

Some Q&A from me and Perplexity:

Q: Was the pro-Palestine protest at Columbia University antisemitic?

A: Based on the search results, the protests at Columbia University appear to have involved both legitimate criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza as well as some incidents of alleged antisemitism:

• The protests were led by student groups like Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), Students for Justice in Palestine, and Jewish Voice for Peace, who were advocating for the university to divest from corporations profiting from Israel's conflict in Gaza 3. Their demands also included a ceasefire in Gaza and increased financial transparency around the university's investments 1.

• However, some Jewish students have accused the protesters of using antisemitic language and engaging in behavior that has made them feel unsafe on campus 1 2 4. Footage emerged of pro-Palestinian activists using derogatory language towards Jewish students 1. The university's president condemned the "antisemitic language" and "intimidating and harassing behavior" occurring on campus 1.

• President Biden also condemned the "antisemitic protests" at Columbia, stating that "silence is complicity" and that this "egregious antisemitism is unacceptable" 2. Other senior Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Rep. Josh Gottheimer have also criticized the protests and called for action against harassment 2.

So in summary, while the core of the protests appears to be legitimate criticism of Israel's actions, there have been credible allegations of antisemitic incidents and behavior that have made Jewish students feel unsafe1 2 4. The university leadership and political figures have condemned these antisemitic elements of the protests 1 2.

Biden reacted strongly, maybe out of proportionality with with the seriousness of what he alleged.

Q: Did Biden condemn the Columbia U protest as antisemitic?

A: Yes, Biden condemned the protests at Columbia University as antisemitic. According to the search results:

"'I unequivocally condemn the antisemitic protests,' Biden declared to reporters as he returned from an Earth Day speech. 'I have established a program to address this issue.'" 2 3

Biden specifically stated that the "blatant antisemitism" seen in the protests at Columbia is "reprehensible and dangerous—and it has absolutely no place on college campuses, or anywhere in our country." 1 4 The White House also issued a statement condemning "calls for violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students and the Jewish community" as "blatantly antisemitic, unconscionable, and dangerous." 1 4

So in clear and unequivocal terms, Biden condemned the Columbia protests as antisemitic and said he has established a program to address this issue. 2 3 5 

Some other politicians also condemned the protest as antisemitic.

Q: What were the specific statements that were considered antisemitic

A: According to the search results, the following specific statements and actions were condemned as antisemitic at the Columbia University protests:

• Chants from protesters of "Go back to Poland" 2

• Signs with the Hamas symbol and the words "I'm with them" 2

• Chants calling for Hamas attacks on Tel Aviv 2

• Protesters attempting to burn an Israel flag 2

• Calls for "violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students and the Jewish community"1 2

• Rhetoric "echoing that of terrorist organizations, especially in the wake of the recent massacre against the Jewish people"1

• Harassment, threats, and intimidation against Jewish students on campus 2 4 

The White House, New York Mayor, and several members of Congress condemned these specific antisemitic statements and actions as "blatantly antisemitic, unconscionable, and dangerous"1 2. They called for the university to take action to ensure the safety and security of Jewish students on campus.1 2 3 4

Most of that feels clearly antisemitic to me. 

At this point, maybe the Israel-Palestine issue could influence the US election, maybe enough to tip it to Trump. I don't know what to think of all of this. If the US had forced a peace plan decades ago, I doubt all of this would be happening today. But, that's in the past. For better or worse, we have live with the consequences of our past actions and inactions.

Outside agitators complicated the situation

Just in time for Mother's Day

 

Melania Trump launches $245 Mother’s Day necklace

Former first lady Melania Trump launched a customizable necklace for Mother’s Day on Sunday to thank and honor “all mothers” ahead of next month’s holiday.

The $245 necklace, called “Her Love & Gratitude,” became available starting Sunday morning on the former first lady’s website and features a flower pendant and adjustable chain.

“Being a mother is one of the most important roles in life. For this Mother’s Day, I have designed the ‘Her Love & Gratitude’ necklace to express immense gratitude and honor all mothers,” Melania said in a statement Sunday.

https://thehill.com/homenews/4609711-melania-trump-launches-245-mothers-day-necklace/

“Her Love,

an exquisite jewel filled with

immense gratitude”

Melania Trump

Why be cynical? Surely not another ruse to raise funds for Donald's defense budget? 

After all, who wouldn't want such a lovely necklace to give to their loved one?

Radical right authoritarian thinking about protest free speech

The Hill reports:

Hawley, Cotton call on Biden to deploy National Guard 

over Gaza protests at colleges

GOP Sens. Josh Hawley (Mo.) and Tom Cotton (Ark.) called on President Biden on Monday to deploy the National Guard to colleges, particularly Columbia University in New York City, where pro-Palestinian protesters have staged sit-ins and other disruptive activities to focus public attention on the war.

That is it. This is the face of authoritarian dictatorship. Period.

My preference over that is to call out the National Guard to arrest and jail authoritarian Republicans in congress. They are the real threat with real power, not pipsqueak demonstrators at Columbia U. and other universities.

Q: Who is the bigger threat to democracy and free speech, powerful authoritarian radicals and thugs like US Senators Hawley and Cotton, or pissed off students on some college campuses?

Dictator radical right thinking about the law, money and free speech

Business Insider reports:

Hush money isn't illegal, it's 'democracy,' Trump lawyer 

says in defiant trial opening statements

Opening arguments in Donald Trump's historic criminal trial got underway on Monday with a prosecutor describing the case as being about a "criminal conspiracy," while a defense attorney for the former president likened hush-money payments to "democracy."

Trump's lead attorney, Todd Blanche, declared, "President Trump is innocent" at the start of his opening statements.

"You'll learn President Trump had nothing to do with any of those 34 pieces of paper except he signed the checks," Blanche told the jurors, adding, "In the White House. While he was running the country. That's not a crime."

There was a non-disclosure agreement, Blanche conceded. But there's nothing wrong with Cohen paying Daniels to protect Trump's brand and keep Daniels from embarrassing Trump's family, the defense lawyer said.

"I have a spoiler alert for you. It's called democracy," Blanche said of the hush-money payment.

"Michael Cohen paying Stormy Daniels — or Stephanie Clifford — in return for her agreeing not to publicly spread false claims, false claims against President Trump, is not illegal," Blanche said.  

Blanche added that Daniels "has made a livelihood out of these allegations."

"She's made hundreds of thousands of dollars," Blanche said without mentioning the "Make America Horny Again" strip club tour that the porn star embarked on after news of the hush-money scandal broke.

Meanwhile, Blanche said, Daniels owes Trump "somewhere around $600,000" due to her legal losses to Trump.

By now it is clear that the Trump/Republican Party/radical right vision of "democracy" is probably at serious variance with yours. The battle lines here are crystal clear. We are in a fight to the death of corrupt, anti-democracy Trump-style authoritarianism and lies vs hopefully somewhat less corrupt, more or less who knows what style of pro-democracy democracy and truth.

Methinks we're in deep trouble. Probably.